Excerpts from "The Science Delusion " or "Science Set Free : 10 Paths To New Discovery " By Rupert Sheldrake : Introduction :

Introduction:THE TEN DOGMAS OF MODERN SCIENCE:The “scientific worldview” is immensely influential because the sciences have been so successful.They touch all our lives through technologies and through modern medicine. Our intellectual worldhas been transformed by an immense expansion of knowledge, down into the most microscopicparticles of matter and out into the vastness of space, with hundreds of billions of galaxies in an everexpandinguniverse.Yet in the second decade of the twenty-first century, when science and technology seem to be at thepeak of their power, when their influence has spread all over the world and when their triumph seemsindisputable, unexpected problems are disrupting the sciences from within. Most scientists take it forgranted that these problems will eventually be solved by more research along established lines, butsome, including myself, think they are symptoms of a deeper malaise.In this book, I argue that science is being held back by centuries-old assumptions that havehardened into dogmas. The sciences would be better off without them: freer, more interesting andmore fun.The biggest scientific delusion of all is that science already knows the answers. The details stillneed working out but, in principle, the fundamental questions are settled.Contemporary science is based on the claim that all reality is material or physical. There is noreality but material reality. Consciousness is a by-product of the physical activity of the brain. Matteris unconscious. Evolution is purposeless. God exists only as an idea in human minds, and hence inhuman heads.These beliefs are powerful, not because most scientists think about them critically but because theydon’t. The facts of science are real enough; so are the techniques that scientists use, and thetechnologies based on them. But the belief system that governs conventional scientific thinking is anact of faith, grounded in a nineteenth-century ideology.This book is pro-science. I want the sciences to be less dogmatic and more scientific. I believe thatthe sciences will be regenerated when they are liberated from the dogmas that constrict them.

The scientific creed:Here are the ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted.1. Everything is essentially mechanical. Dogs, for example, are complex mechanisms, ratherthan living organisms with goals of their own. Even people are machines, “lumberingrobots,” in Richard Dawkins’s vivid phrase, with brains that are like geneticallyprogrammed computers.2. All matter is unconscious. It has no inner life or subjectivity or point of view. Even humanconsciousness is an illusion produced by the material activities of brains.3. The total amount of matter and energy is always the same (with the exception of the BigBang, when all the matter and energy of the universe suddenly appeared).4. The laws of nature are fixed. They are the same today as they were at the beginning, and theywill stay the same forever.5. Nature is purposeless, and evolution has no goal or direction.6. All biological inheritance is material, carried in the genetic material, DNA, and in othermaterial structures.7. Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of brains. When you look at a tree,the image of the tree you are seeing is not “out there,” where it seems to be, but inside yourbrain.8. Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at death.9. Unexplained phenomena such as telepathy are illusory.10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.Together, these beliefs make up the philosophy or ideology of materialism, whose central assumptionis that everything is essentially material or physical, even minds. This belief system became dominantwithin science in the late nineteenth century, and is now taken for granted. Many scientists areunaware that materialism is an assumption: they simply think of it as science, or the scientific view ofreality, or the scientific worldview. They are not actually taught about it, or given a chance to discussit. They absorb it by a kind of intellectual osmosis.In everyday usage, materialism refers to a way of life devoted entirely to material interests, apreoccupation with wealth, possessions and luxury. These attitudes are no doubt encouraged by thematerialist philosophy, which denies the existence of any spiritual realities or non-material goals, butin this book I am concerned with materialism’s scientific claims, rather than its effects on lifestyles.In the spirit of radical skepticism, I turn each of these ten doctrines into a question. Entirely newvistas open up when a widely accepted assumption is taken as the beginning of an inquiry, rather thanas an unquestionable truth. For example, the assumption that nature is machine-like or mechanicalbecomes a question: “Is nature mechanical?” The assumption that matter is unconscious becomes “Ismatter unconscious?” And so on.In the Prologue I look at the interactions of science, religion and power, and then in Chapters 1 to10, I examine each of the ten dogmas. At the end of each chapter, I discuss what difference this topicmakes and how it affects the way we live our lives. I also pose several further questions, so that anyreaders who want to discuss these subjects with friends or colleagues will have some useful startingpoints. Each chapter is followed by a summary.

The credibility crunch for the “scientific worldview”:For more than two hundred years, materialists have promised that science will eventually explaineverything in terms of physics and chemistry. Science will prove that living organisms are complexmachines, minds are nothing but brain activity and nature is purposeless. Believers are sustained bythe faith that scientific discoveries will justify their beliefs. The philosopher of science Karl Poppercalled this stance “promissory materialism” because it depends on issuing promissory notes fordiscoveries not yet made.1 Despite all the achievements of science and technology, materialism is nowfacing a credibility crunch that was unimaginable in the twentieth century.In 1963, when I was studying biochemistry at Cambridge University, I was invited to a series ofprivate meetings with Francis Crick and Sydney Brenner in Brenner’s rooms in King’s College, alongwith a few of my classmates. Crick and Brenner had recently helped to “crack” the genetic code. Bothwere ardent materialists and Crick was also a militant atheist. They explained there were two majorunsolved problems in biology: development and consciousness. They had not been solved because thepeople who worked on them were not molecular biologists—or very bright. Crick and Brenner weregoing to find the answers within ten years, or maybe twenty. Brenner would take developmentalbiology, and Crick consciousness. They invited us to join them.Both tried their best. Brenner was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2002 for his work on the developmentof a tiny worm, Caenorhabdytis elegans. Crick corrected the manuscript of his final paper on the brainthe day before he died in 2004. At his funeral, his son Michael said that what made him tick was notthe desire to be famous, wealthy or popular, but “to knock the final nail into the coffin of vitalism.”(Vitalism is the theory that living organisms are truly alive, and not explicable in terms of physics andchemistry alone.)Crick and Brenner failed. The problems of development and consciousness remain unsolved. Manydetails have been discovered, dozens of genomes have been sequenced, and brain scans are ever moreprecise. But there is still no proof that life and minds can be explained by physics and chemistry alone(see Chapters 1, 4 and 8).The fundamental proposition of materialism is that matter is the only reality. Thereforeconsciousness is nothing but brain activity. It is either like a shadow, an “epiphenomenon,” that doesnothing, or it is just another way of talking about brain activity. However, among contemporaryresearchers in neuroscience and consciousness studies there is no consensus about the nature of minds.Leading journals such as Behavioural and Brain Sciences and the Journal of Consciousness Studiespublish many articles that reveal deep problems with the materialist doctrine. The philosopher DavidChalmers has called the very existence of subjective experience the “hard problem.” It is hard becauseit defies explanation in terms of mechanisms. Even if we understand how eyes and brains respond tored light, the experience of redness is not accounted for.In biology and psychology the credibility rating of materialism is falling. Can physics ride to therescue? Some materialists prefer to call themselves physicalists, to emphasize that their hopes dependon modern physics, not nineteenth-century theories of matter. But physicalism’s own credibility ratinghas been reduced by physics itself, for four reasons.First, some physicists insist that quantum mechanics cannot be formulated without taking intoaccount the minds of observers. They argue that minds cannot be reduced to physics because physicspresupposes the minds of physicists.2Second, the most ambitious unified theories of physical reality, string and M-theories, with ten andeleven dimensions respectively, take science into completely new territory. Strangely, as StephenHawking tells us in his book The Grand Design (2010), “No one seems to know what the ‘M’ standsfor, but it may be ‘master’, ‘miracle’ or ‘mystery.’ ” According to what Hawking calls “modeldependentrealism,” different theories may have to be applied in different situations. “Each theorymay have its own version of reality, but according to model-dependent realism, that is acceptable solong as the theories agree in their predictions whenever they overlap, that is, whenever they can bothbe applied.”3String theories and M-theories are currently untestable so “model-dependent realism” can only bejudged by reference to other models, rather than by experiment. It also applies to countless otheruniverses, none of which has ever been observed. As Hawking points out,M-theory has solutions that allow for different universes with different apparent laws, dependingon how the internal space is curled. M-theory has solutions that allow for many different internalspaces, perhaps as many as 10500, which means it allows for 10500 different universes, each withits own laws … The original hope of physics to produce a single theory explaining the apparentlaws of our universe as the unique possible consequence of a few simple assumptions may haveto be abandoned.4Some physicists are deeply skeptical about this entire approach, as the theoretical physicist LeeSmolin shows in his book The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Scienceand What Comes Next (2008).5 String theories, M-theories and “model-dependent realism” are a shakyfoundation for materialism or physicalism or any other belief system, as discussed in Chapter 1.Third, since the beginning of the twenty-first century, it has become apparent that the known kindsof matter and energy make up only about 4 percent of the universe. The rest consists of “dark matter”and “dark energy.” The nature of 96 percent of physical reality is literally obscure (see Chapter 2).Fourth, the Cosmological Anthropic Principle asserts that if the laws and constants of nature hadbeen slightly different at the moment of the Big Bang, biological life could never have emerged, andhence we would not be here to think about it (see Chapter 3). So did a divine mind fine-tune the lawsand constants in the beginning? To avoid a creator God emerging in a new guise, most leadingcosmologists prefer to believe that our universe is one of a vast, and perhaps infinite, number ofparallel universes, all with different laws and constants, as M-theory also suggests. We just happen toexist in the one that has the right conditions for us.6This multiverse theory is the ultimate violation of Occam’s Razor, the philosophical principle that“entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity,” or in other words, that we should make as fewassumptions as possible. It also has the major disadvantage of being untestable.7 And it does not evensucceed in getting rid of God. An infinite God could be the God of an infinite number of universes.8Materialism provided a seemingly simple, straightforward worldview in the late nineteenth century,but twenty-first-century science has left it behind. Its promises have not been fulfilled, and itspromissory notes have been devalued by hyperinflation.I am convinced that the sciences are being held back by assumptions that have hardened intodogmas, maintained by powerful taboos. These beliefs protect the citadel of established science, butact as barriers against open-minded thinking.

Materialism is just a false conception of nature : a belief assumption = unscientific , per definition .

Science has been dominated and hijacked by materialism , materialism as a false and unscientific world view or philosophy , since the 19th century at least .

Materialism goes beyond science and its unparalleled effective scientific method that's unlike any other for that matter , by assuming that the universe or reality nature are exclusively material .

The following article does not necessarily reflect my own opinions or views on the subject :

The critique of materialism goes way beyond what the following article tries to approach ,summarize or tackle :-I-I do not agree with the author's allegations that materialism has succeeded in "solving " the challenge or hard problem of life , design, thought , morality ...0_Materialism is just a dogmatic belief system or rather a false secular religion ideology in science , a misconsception of nature in science , that has absolutely nothing to do with science thus , and that just tries to "validate " itself through science , in vain of course , logically and per-definition .I_Those so-called neurocomputation mechanisms cannot account for such non-physical non-biological processes such as thought either .II-Darwin's theory of evolution is only and exclusively biological physical , so, it tackles only the physical biological side of evolution, but materialists , per definition, just try to extend it to non-physical non-biological processes ,for obvious materialist ideological "reasons " that have ,obviously , nothing to do with science .III- That life can be approached via physics and chemistry does not mean that life is just that .IV_ Materialism cannot , per definition, succeed in "refuting " the existence of God, design ................behind all those laws of physics ............

V-Neither the materialist version or rather the materialist misinterpretation of Darwin's exclusively biological physical theory of evolution , nor Darwin's exclusively biological physical theory of evolution can account for human morality, cognition, life or of consciousness "fully" ........let alone their evolution .VI-Materialism can, per definition , not account for consciousness, life ,feelings , emotions, human cognition , human conscience , human morality , ...."fully" , let alone their origins evolution or emergence ._VII-The brain does not cause consciousness : that alleged causality that's ,obviously , just a materialist misinterpretation of that mutual actual factual correlation or interaction between the brain and consciousness thus , was never proven to be true, ever , that's just a materialist belief assumption : causation is no explanation either .VIII-There is a lot more to say on the subject , so, i will just leave it at that ,for the time being at least .

Quote :

" Why Materialism is False:

In short, I think materialism is false. Below is why, with a detour through the reasons why Materialism isn't false.

I don't mind if you read this or not, just thought I'd share for anyone remotely interested. No, it's not particularly well written or well structured, and there is so much more that could be said on this topic, but ... meh.

_______________________________________________________________

Materalism, I define as follows: 'The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.' - Answers.com First, there is an important distinction to be made. Materialism and Science are not the same thing. Science is the study of the natural world, so Science has no jurisdiction over any theory regarding that which cannot be empirically tested.

For example, suppose a Theist were to conjecture that God is the law enforcer of the universe, ensuring that at every moment, at every place, all physical occurrences obeyed the laws that God has decreed. This conjecture is impossible to test scientifically, since all possible experimental observations are consistent with its predictions. However, the unscientific character of our Theist's conjecture does not mean that it is false; the answer to the question is simply outside of the jurisdiction of the Scientific method.

The philosophy of Materialism goes beyond the Scientific Method, postulating that only the material exists. This would place the Materialist in disagreement with our Theist. If it is true that only the material exists, then the Theist's law enforcer God does not exist, since that God would qualify as immaterial.

The above constitutes the important distinction between Materialism and Science, whilst also explaining why Materialists are always Scientists. However the philosophy of Materialism should not be conflated with that of Science, as it is possible to both be a Scientist and not be a Materialist.

_______________________________________________________________

Materialism has always been an unpopular philosophy, with critics branding it as cold, uncaring and fundamentally amoral. The philosophy has had its most bitter rivals in that of Theism, as Materialism denies the truth of religious scripture, denying the existence of God, the afterlife and the immortal soul. Despite this, Materialism has stumbled on, with proponents offering Materialistic solutions to many of the long standing problems in philosophy. The problems listed below have stood as criticisms to the Materialistic philosophy now and in the past. The list is not comprehensive, but does reflect what I believe to have been the key problems that Materialism has overcome.

1) The problem of life 2) The problem of design 3) The problem of thought 4) The problem of morality Here I will sketch a brief overview of what each problem is and how I believe the Materialist can solve it.

The first and easiest is the problem of life. The problem arises from the unique properties and capabilities of living organisms; it had seemed incomprehensible that the mechanical world of physics could explain the biological. Something else was needed, so it was postulated that a vital force animated living matter, imbuing it with lifelike qualities. The doctrine held that life was inexplicable in terms of physicochemical interactions. If the Materialist could not explain life, then Materialism must be false.

The Materialist did not get his answer to this problem in one sweeping theory, but rather a cumulation of experimental findings, from William Harvey's discovery that the circularitory system was a cleverly engineered mechanism to pump blood around the body, to Fracis Crick and James Watson's discovery of the double helix structure of DNA. The march of scientific progress has unveiled the fine structure of cellular machinery, all working impeccably from physicochemical laws without the need for a vital animating force.

Here the Materialist can explain how life works without appealing to any immaterial vital essence, but there still remains another problem to be solved. This is the problem of design. How is it that this incredible arrangement of organised matter came into being? The odds that such organisation would occur by chance are astronomically low, but life is bustling all around us in a multitude of forms. If the Materialist cannot explain this design, then Materialism must be false.

In 1859, in a joint paper by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace that explanation was provided. The Materialist now had The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection i.e. The gradual accumulation of adaptive organisation by selective advantage. This elegant theory has provided the Materialist with an answer to the problem of design, which has in time been corroborated by a vast amount of evidence, from practically every field of scientific study.

The problem of design had been solved, but an interesting disagreement between Alfred Russell Wallace and Charles Darwin persisted. The problem of thought presented itself. To Wallace, the human capacity for reasoned thought was beyond the reach of evolution, a feat which could simply not have been achieved by anything other than supernatural intervention, or in other words: God given. How could it be that a physical system could possibly think? If Materialism cannot explain how it is that we think, then Materialism must be false.

The answer to the problem today is all around us, in front of anyone reading this at this very moment, i.e. computation. Alan Turing's Turing machine and the advent of modern electronics are a vivid illustration that complex computational architecture, obeying only the laws of physics can perform intelligent operations. The Materialist can now look to neurobiology, where cognition is explained as the consequent of neurocomputations occurring in parallel throughout the central nervous system. The Materialist now has his answer to Wallace's conjecture that the capacity for reason is unevolvable and must be God given.

So the Materialist has provided powerful arguments to solve the problem of life, the problem of design and the problem thought. Unlike these three problems, the final problem on my list cannot refute Materialism. If Materialism is indeed amoral, it would be a nonsequitor to conclude from Materialism's amorality that it is false. For this reason, the problem of morality is a special case, but nonetheless very powerful. Briefly, the argument claims that if we are nothing but an unintentional consequence of natural selection, nothing but elaborate machines and built by selfish genes, then there is no reason to work for a higher purpose. For what reason should we treat our fellow man with compassion? What becomes of right and wrong with no God?

The answer to this problem is the combined product of evolutionary biology, neurobiology and philosophy. The combined solutions to the previous three problems set the stage for solving the problem of morality. First, evolutionary biology, far from undermining the basis of morality, can explain why we have a moral sense in the first place. Second, neurobiology has provided scientists with evidence of how the human brain computes moral decisions. Finally, philosophers have raised objections to the accusation that Materialism is inherently amoral, refuting the accusations with powerful solutions and counterarguments.

Note: I am sure many reading this may object to the solutions I have presented to the 'four problems,' such objections are welcome and I encourage further criticism.

________________________________________________________________

I have taken this detour through the successes of Materialism to drive home that I have no political agenda against the philosophy, religiously motivated or otherwise. I now wish to draw attention to my fifth problem for Materialism:

5) The problem of consciousness A single element of conscious experience is called a quale, a group of quale are known as qualia. A quale might be the subjective experience of red, cold or pain. All quale are symbolic representations of frequencies and angles. The problem for Materialism is explaining qualia, the subjective experience of life, the very subjective experience without which we cannot imagine life being worth living at all. How can a physical system such as the brain be responsible for consciousness?. This is no small problem, for if Materialism cannot explain consciousness, then Materialism is false.

The problem of consciousness has puzzled philosophers for centuries. To clarify the problem, imagine opening up my brain whilst displaying a large red circle to my eyes. After some probing, you discover a cluster of neurons whose combined activity is responsible for my conscious experience of red. However, all you have is my word to go on, there is nothing special about that particular cluster of neurons, no telltale sign that these are responsible for my conscious experience. To the outside observer, the entire neurocomputational system would work exactly the same whether or not I was actually consciously experiencing the red circle. To make make matters more puzzling, even if I am consciously experiencing life, how do you know that what you call red is what I call red? So long as the frequencies and angles which these qualia represent maintain a constant relation to each other, then for all you know my conscious experience of red might be radically different to yours.

No matter where you look in my brain, even if you are looking at that particular cluster of neurons responsible for my conscious experience of red, you cannot sensibly say that you are looking at the quale redness. The redness I see is qualitively independent of the neural substrate that is responsible for that quale. To put this another way, I would argue that qualia are ontologically irreducible to the neural substrate, that is, qualia have independent qualities which cannot be explained at the physical level. However, I also would argue that consciousness is entirely caused by the neural substrate, that consciousness has no informational content or cognitive ability above that which occurs on the neurocomputational level i.e. consciousness is causally reducible to the neural substrate.

To clarify, we can play a thought experiment involving two billiard balls. Billiard ball 1 and billiard ball 2. First take these two examples:

1) Imagine ball 1 moving on a trajectory toward ball 2. As ball 1 strikes ball 2, both have a change of velocity. 2) Imagine ball 1 moving on a trajectory toward ball 2. This time, imagine that ball 2 is invisible. As ball 1 strikes ball 2, both have a change of velocity. Notice that in example number 2 we infer the existence of ball 2 because of the change in velocity of ball 1. We cannot directly experience ball 2, so our knowledge of ball 2 is limited by it's relationship to ball 1. Now, take a third example:

3) Imagine ball 1 moving on a trajectory toward ball 2. This time, imagine that ball 2 is invisible and has a one way causal relationship to ball 1. As ball 1 strikes ball 2, only ball 2 changes its velocity and ball 1 carries on at a constant speed, in a straight line. In this thought experiment, ball 2 exists and it's change in velocity is caused by ball 1, but to any observer unable to register ball 2, it remains completely invisible and undetectable. My conjecture is that qualia are like ball 2, which is why the conscious experience of other human beings is impossible to detect, the causal interaction is one way.

The problem for the Materialist is that consciousness itself is immaterial, the frequencies and angles that make up subjective experience may be caused by, but are not part of the Material world. Thus, I conclude that Materialism is false.

________________________________________________________________

A possible criticism of my theory is that consciousness is an emergent consequence of brain activity. This is a tempting view to take, analogous to the quality of wetness. A body of water is wet, even though no particular element of that body of water is wet. To clarify, a single molecule of H2O cannot be wet, because the quality of wetness is dependent upon the interactions of the constituent parts, without belong to any of those particular constituent parts. Wetness is an emergent property. A critic might conjecture that consciousness is also an emergent property of brain activity.

I do not think that consciousness is an emergent product of brain activity. The difference between wetness and consciousness is that the quality of wetness follows from the physical laws governing the behavior of H2O, that is, given only the laws of physics I could predict that particular chemical substances would have the emergent property of wetness. The same cannot be said of consciousness. Given only the laws of physics, I could not predict the emergence of consciousness, it simply does not follow that from any complex neurocomputational system that consciousness should be." End Quote.

Nagel, Sheldrake , Chalmers , John Searle , and the rest were just speculating about materialism indeed , while not knowing the difference between speculation and evidence or arguments of course .....For all those interested , try to read their speculations and utter non-sense ,according to these folks at least , via those tons of posted excerpts of their books and more , as displayed in this and other threads of mine ....

How does it feel to replace a medieval big lie by yet a 19th century bigger one , a "scientific " one at that ?

Talking about replacing a medieval delusion by a bigger one , a 'scientific " materialist one ,and you do have the nerve to call me a naive guy haha : look who's talking,or rather projecting ...amazing ...

I am afraid they were/are just pearls for ...swine ,as David Cooper once said in that regard .Let's hope some more intelligent people who have been watching have been able to grasp the revolutionary character of some of those excerpts that will be triggering a scientific revolution ...soon enough = inevitable = just a question of time thus .

There is nothing more stimulating for human intelligence than schoks indeed , as it is an undeniable fact that cognitive intelligence is by far not the highest form of intelligence or intellect , not even remotely close thus ........

Have a rest, Don - you only just got back from your last theatrical flounce out

Any bets on how long before he's back yet again?

If he stays true to form, it will be less than two days. But even during his last departure, I saw him logged in to the forum later the same day that he supposedly left. He'll be back, he just can't help himself................

Have a rest, Don - you only just got back from your last theatrical flounce out

Any bets on how long before he's back yet again?

If he stays true to form, it will be less than two days. But even during his last departure, I saw him logged in to the forum later the same day that he supposedly left. He'll be back, he just can't help himself................

He's back..................Don just logged in. He just took a sneak peek and now he's gone again. I told you he couldn't stay away. It won't be long and he'll be posting again.

Alonso Quijano, the protagonist of the novel, is a retired country gentleman nearing fifty years of age, living in an unnamed section of La Mancha with his niece and housekeeper. While mostly a rational man of sound reason, his reading of books of chivalry in excess has had a profound effect on him, leading to the distortion of his perception and the wavering of his mental faculties. In essence, he believes every word of these books of chivalry to be true though, for the most part, the content of these books is clearly fiction. Otherwise, his wits are intact.

Alonso Quijano, the protagonist of the novel, is a retired country gentleman nearing fifty years of age, living in an unnamed section of La Mancha with his niece and housekeeper. While mostly a rational man of sound reason, his reading of books of chivalry in excess has had a profound effect on him, leading to the distortion of his perception and the wavering of his mental faculties. In essence, he believes every word of these books of chivalry to be true though, for the most part, the content of these books is clearly fiction. Otherwise, his wits are intact.

Yes, it's quite a good match for the recently departed, perhaps soon to return, Don. I did think the tag might be a hint that he'd be wilfully trolling, but given the persistence and obsessive nature of his posts, it now looks more like an ironic coincidence or subconscious 'tell' that he knows his view is absurd...

I will have to break my promise to leave this forum ,once again then ,just to try to make you realise how absurd surreal implausible,stupid ...you name it ... and false the materialist mainstream "scientific world view " is : all your speculations about me and my motives are false thus :

So, let's start all over again :

What extraordinary evidence has materialism been delivering for its extraordinary claims , regarding the nature of reality ?

Do try to answer that simple question , folks, for starters then .

By the way :

Merry christmas and a happy new year , to you all .

P.S.: I did choose deliberately this nick of mine , as a kind of irony or sarcasm : which means that those excerpts i have been delivering from all those "chivalry " books have been no absurd fiction , the materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " is , the latter as a Donxichotian absurdity those excerpts have been refuting .....

What extraordinary evidence has materialism been delivering for its extraordinary claims , regarding the nature of reality ?

You're the one claiming an 'immaterial something' extra; the burden of proof for that is on you.

No , it's exactly the other way around : the materialist false mainstream 'scientific world view " has been assuming that "all is matter , including the mind " thus : the burden of proof is yours to deliver thus : so, just try to answer that simple question then .

P.S.: My sincere and genuine apologies for having been rude to you , scientist : all the best .

I can't rather resist the temptation,desire and urge to make you realise

Welcome back Don.............., The only way to make us realize anything is for you to present evidence, which to date, you have not!

You are the author of this thread and it is incumbent upon you to provide the evidence in support of your views, not for us to prove you wrong! If you ever expect any of us to agree with you, you'll need to provide some tangible evidence. And not just copied and pasted excerpts from spurious sources.

The reason material evidence is necessary is; None of us is able to read your, or for that matter, any one else's mind. You can't just declare that your evidence exists in your own mind, you must be able to share it with others and that takes tangible material evidence.

Sorry, Don, repeating this mantra doesn't give it meaning. It may make you happy to do so, but it's a waste of your talent. There is no "scientific world view". Science is a process, not a philosophy.

Absolutely Alan....., and the process demands sharable and repeatable evidence. And when I say sharable, that demands an ability to present evidence that can be tested. And to be tested, the evidence must be observable and distinguishable from its surroundings, whether material or not.

BTW, no scientist here has ever said that all evidence must be MATERIAL. But evidence must be repeatable and observable and can't just come from the idea of an abstract consciousness. Consciousness is a process enabled by the physical workings of the physical brain..........period.

Ask yourself one question.....................Is consciousness possible without a brain? I think your intelligent enough to know the answer Don!

The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks.
Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors
and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators,
sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.